Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] regulator: Fix pbias regulator enable

[Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>]

+Olof

On 3 September 2015 at 08:50, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com> wrote:
> vsel_reg and enable_reg of the pbias regulator descriptor should actually
> have the offset from syscon.
>
> However after
> "ARM: dts: <platform>: add minimal l4 bus layout with control module
> support"
> vsel_reg and enable_reg started to have the absolute address because
> of address translation that happens due to pbias node made as the
> child node of syscon. This breaks the pbias regulator enable.
>
> This series adds the 'offset' to be populated in vsel_reg and enable_reg
> in the pbias driver itself.
>
> Changes from v1:
> *) Fixed Tony's review comments on adding a 'comment' for adding offset in
>    the driver and adding a warning for using platform_get_resource.
> *) Added Tony's Acked-by.
>
> Tested these patches against mmc -next in omap4 panda, omap3 beagle xm,
> dra72 and omap5 uevm
>
> Kishon Vijay Abraham I (6):
>   regulator: pbias: program pbias register offset in pbias driver
>   ARM: dts: dra7: use "ti,pbias-dra7" compatible string for pbias
>   ARM: dts: omap243x: use "ti,pbias-omap2" compatible string for pbias
>   ARM: dts: omap3: use "ti,pbias-omap3" compatible string for pbias
>   ARM: dts: omap4: use "ti,pbias-omap4" compatible string for pbias
>   ARM: dts: omap5: use "ti,pbias-omap5" compatible string for pbias
>
>  .../bindings/regulator/pbias-regulator.txt         |    7 ++-
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/dra7.dtsi                        |    2 +-
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/omap2430.dtsi                    |    2 +-
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi                       |    2 +-
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi                       |    2 +-
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi                       |    2 +-
>  drivers/regulator/pbias-regulator.c                |   56 +++++++++++++++++---
>  7 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>

I have recently queued another patchset [1] for the mmc omap driver
for 4.3 through my mmc tree for which Olof Johansson reported a
regression [2] for Panda ES with multi_v7_defconfig.

Kishon, could you please clarify if $subject patchset solves that
regression reported by Olof? Or perhaps Olof can run a test?

Finally, perhaps it's better if we queue this through my mmc tree
since we would then be able to avoid the regression - if I put
$subject patchset before [1], right? Then I need an ack from Mark for
the regulator patch.
Please tell me if you guys prefer another way.

Kind regards
Uffe

[1]
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2027789

[2]
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg33146.html